Kevin Fisher is AVAC’s Director of Policy, Data and Analytics.

Measuring the impact and meaning of advocacy can be difficult. Often goals are achieved or real progress is made, but documenting the role of advocates in those successes can be a challenge. At the same time, campaigns may not achieve every goal to change policies, fund programs or pass legislation, but still have advanced an issue, broken new ground or taken important steps. Those evaluating campaigns may not be able to show the impact of advocacy or see the signals of progress. Yet it’s critical to assess strategies in real time. AVAC has attempted to maintain a close eye on its work, gauging both success and areas where more work or different thinking is needed.

Through the Coalition to Accelerate & Support Prevention Research (CASPR), designed by AVAC in collaboration with key partners and supported by USAID, we created an evaluation tool entitled Simple, Participatory Assessment of Real Change or SPARC. It’s a participatory system designed to identify outcomes and place advocates at the heart of the evaluation process. As used in CASPR, SPARC harvests “outcome stories” from partners, reviewing these stories across the CASPR network in sessions dubbed a SPARC-fest. Fellow advocates hear the stories, provide feedback, ask questions and test ideas. It is, in a way, a system of peer review for advocates.

Former AVAC staffer Jules Dasmarinas and consultant Rhonda Schlangen discuss AVAC’s SPARC program in a special issue of New Directions for Evaluation, titled Pushing boundaries: Advocacy evaluation and real-time learning in an HIV prevention research advocacy coalition in sub-Saharan Africa.

Why SPARC?

In 2016, AVAC received funding from the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to develop and implement the CASPR program. CASPR began with its own monitoring evaluation and learning (MEL) system to document outcomes and track indicators of progress. But given the breadth of CASPR partners, AVAC sought a more participatory and inclusive approach that would capture nuances and share lessons for success. SPARC grew from this impulse. SPARC provides a platform for all CASPR members to identify signs of progress and frame outcomes across the Coalition’s priorities. SPARC enables CASPR members and AVAC project staff to see themselves as active contributors in the evaluation process. SPARC demystifies evaluation, expands the discourse, cultivates innovation and informs the advocacy.

As Jules and Rhonda found, SPARC highlighted the following:

• Participants are connected through shared goals and are incentivized to invest in developing relationships and trust. This enables SPARC participants to build off a common foundation and use the process to develop a more nuanced and useful analysis of their collective progress.
• SPARC is integrated into forums that network members use to collaborate and plan their work. This enables SPARC to seamlessly feed into planning, which is actionable learning. By demonstrating immediate application and benefits, SPARC is less likely to be stigmatized as an evaluation process.
• Program managers intentionally calibrate SPARC to integrate and balance with other demands on network participants’ time through exploratory conversations with evalu- ators.
• Evaluators take a “work ourselves out of a job” approach to ensure focus is on sup- port and facilitation of substantive participation. Calibrating evaluators’ role with an eye toward expanding ownership of network members enables evaluators to identify opportunities to support SPARC processes, such as categorizing outcomes that partners may not have time or feel well equipped to conduct.

Where to, SPARC?

Advocacy programs often face erratic funding and questions about their value. Rigorous and multiple evaluation strategies for the advocacy field are important for both prioritizing effective work, but also making the case for supporting advocacy. New advocacy evaluation tools, like SPARC , help advocates show the pace of progress and real impact on their way to achieving major goals. By design, SPARC is a dynamic approach and can be adapted to other coalitions or movements that aspire to learn from all voices in the evaluation process. One AVAC partner, PZAT has an initiative adapting SPARC to its work with the COMPASS Africa project, and AVAC is working with PZAT and others as we update our overarching agenda for monitoring, evaluation and learning across all that we do.

In this Advocates Network, a blog by AVAC’s Kevin Fisher offers a deep dive into an innovative model, SPARC, to show the impact of advocacy.

In September, the publication New Directions for Evaluation featured an article on Pushing boundaries: Advocacy evaluation and real-time learning in an HIV prevention research advocacy coalition in sub-Saharan Africa. Written by former AVACer Jules Dasmarinas and consultant Rhonda Schlangen, the article discusses Simple, Participatory Assessment of Real Change or SPARC, a new model for evaluating the impact of advocacy.

Launched in 2017 as part of our Coalition to Accelerate and Support Prevention Research (CASPR), SPARC offers participants an inclusive process to gain insights, mark progress, and identify successes in advocacy work that can be difficult to assess. Advocacy wins are not always found in the number of new laws passed or dollars distributed. The most important steps sometimes cannot be counted, but they can be understood. Read Kevin’s blog to learn more…

Putting the “L” in Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) — a journal review of AVAC’s SPARC program

By Kevin Fisher

Measuring the impact and meaning of advocacy can be difficult. Often goals are achieved or real progress is made, but documenting the role of advocates in those successes can be a challenge. At the same time, campaigns may not achieve every goal to change policies, fund programs or pass legislation, but still have advanced an issue, broken new ground or taken important steps. Those evaluating campaigns may struggle to see and show the impact of advocacy or the signals of progress. Yet it’s critical to assess strategies in real time. At AVAC, we maintain a close eye on our work, gauging both success and areas where more attention or different thinking is needed.

Through the Coalition to Accelerate & Support Prevention Research (CASPR), designed by AVAC in collaboration with key partners and supported by USAID, we created an evaluation tool entitled Simple, Participatory Assessment of Real Change, or SPARC. It’s a participatory system designed to identify outcomes and place advocates at the heart of the evaluation process. As used in CASPR, SPARC harvests “outcome stories” from partners, reviewing these stories across the CASPR network in sessions dubbed a SPARC-fest. Fellow advocates hear the stories, provide feedback, ask questions and test ideas. It is, in a way, a system of peer review for advocates.

Former AVAC staffer Jules Dasmarinas and consultant Rhonda Schlangen discuss AVAC’s SPARC program in a special issue of <New Directions for Evaluation. Pushing boundaries: Advocacy evaluation and real-time learning in an HIV prevention research advocacy coalition in sub-Saharan Africa and it’s an important read for advocates.

Why SPARC?

In 2016, AVAC received funding from the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to develop and implement the CASPR program. CASPR began with its own monitoring evaluation and learning (MEL) system to document outcomes and track indicators of progress. But given the breadth of CASPR partners, AVAC sought a more participatory and inclusive approach that would capture nuances and share lessons for success. SPARC grew from this impulse. SPARC provides a platform for all CASPR members to identify signs of progress and frame outcomes across the Coalition’s priorities. SPARC enables CASPR members and AVAC project staff to see themselves as active contributors in the evaluation process. SPARC demystifies evaluation, expands the discourse, cultivates innovation and informs the advocacy.

As Jules and Rhonda found, SPARC highlighted the following:

1. Participants are connected through shared goals and are incentivized to invest in developing relationships and trust. This enables SPARC participants to build off a common foundation and use the process to develop a more nuanced and useful analysis of their collective progress.
2. SPARC is integrated into forums that CASPR members use to collaborate and plan their work. This enables SPARC to seamlessly support planning. SPARC is learning that leads to action. By demonstrating immediate application and benefits, SPARC is less likely to be stigmatized as an evaluation process.
3. Program managers intentionally calibrate SPARC to integrate and balance with other demands on members’ time.
4. Evaluators take a “work ourselves out of a job” approach to ensure focus is on support, keeping an eye on expanding member ownership of the SPARC process.

Where to, SPARC?

At AVAC partner our commitment to SPARC is ongoing. PZAT, has an initiative that is adapting SPARC to its work with the COMPASS Africa project. PZAT, AVAC and others are continually updating our overarching agenda for monitoring, evaluation and learning across all that we do. It’s essential work. Advocacy programs often face erratic funding and questions about their value. Rigorous and multiple strategies for evaluating advocacy are important both to prioritize effective work and to make the case for supporting advocacy. By design, SPARC is a dynamic approach and can be adapted to other coalitions or movements that aspire to learn from all voices in the evaluation process, a model with much to offer the field. New tools for evaluating advocacy, like SPARC, help advocates show the pace of progress and demonstrate real impact on their way to achieving major goals.

Anna Miti is a journalist, media trainer and advocate. She is the current chairperson of the Health Communicators Forum of Zimbabwe. She works with the Humanitarian Information Facilitation Centre to convene media science cafes in Zimbabwe.

In July 2021, The Health Times of Zimbabwe reported that the Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe approved the monthly Dapivirine Vaginal Ring for use as an HIV prevention tool, making Zimbabwe the first country to do so. This news is a milestone in a longer process of approvals and recommendations that was triggered when the ring received a positive scientific opinion from the European Medicines Agency in July 2020 for its use among women ages 18 and older in non-EU countries with a high disease burden. Next came WHO prequalification in November of 2020. Then, in January of 2021, WHO issued a recommendation for the ring as an additional prevention choice for women at substantial risk of HIV infection. Following these actions from the WHO, news of the approval of the ring in Zimbabwe generated a lot of excitement, locally and elsewhere, as this tool is one of the few HIV prevention methods that are solely within the control of women. The ring can be used covertly or overtly to reduce their chances of getting HIV.

I am excited too, but I’m not sitting down to rest with congratulations on my lips.

There is a popular song in Zimbabwe called Kure whose lyrics go “kwatinobva kure, kwatinoenda kure”—loosely translated to mean, “We have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go”. I’m singing that song as I consider the news of the approval of the Dapivirine Vaginal Ring in Zimbabwe. This journey has been really long. People have been struggling to push forward an option women control and can use discreetly for decades.

Over the years, some microbicide and PrEP studies showed promise, others ended with disappointing results (see box). But advocates, researchers, champions of women’s health, of women’s rights, of HIV prevention, we all pushed on. Researchers were exploring drugs such as tenofovir, using different delivery methods such as gels and films. It was not until 2016, when the results of two large-scale studies of the Dapivirine Vaginal Ring, ASPIRE and RING, that a woman-controlled option showed significant efficacy in HIV prevention. Five years later, the world has its first approval. Now, in the days, weeks and months to come, so much needs to be done. Women who need the ring must be able to find it when and where they look for HIV prevention, and they need to know about it, with every question answered, to feel empowered to choose it.

New research from AVAC and partners shows promising approaches to reach adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) with comprehensive and integrated services for HIV prevention and sexual and reproductive health (SRH), including expanding access to existing and future PrEP products. Assessments in Kenya, Malawi and Zimbabwe reveal lessons that can be applied across countries and identify areas for further investment to spur integration. Integration of HIV and Sexual and Reproductive Health in the Era of ARV-Based Prevention: Findings from assessments in Kenya, Malawi and Zimbabwe is now available on Gates Open Research.

Join us and representatives from the Ministries of Health in Kenya, Malawi and Zimbabwe, Pangaea Zimbabwe AIDS Trust (PZAT) and Georgetown University’s Center for Innovation in Global Health for a webinar on October 14, 8-9am ET / 2-3pm CAT / 3-4pm EAT to discuss these findings, progress to date and context-specific realities. Register here for the webinar.

Background

Though substantial progress has been made to curb the HIV epidemic over the past decade, high rates of new HIV infections persist among AGYW in sub-Saharan Africa, reflecting critical gaps in reaching them with integrated HIV prevention and SRH services. With the scale-up of oral PrEP, and introduction of novel HIV prevention products on the horizon, countries have a unique opportunity to expand innovative approaches to deliver HIV/SRH services and improve health for millions of people.

Advocacy Resources

There is still much to be done to fully realize the integration of HIV prevention with SRH. SRHintegration.org and www.avac.org/advance-hiv-srh-integration offer resources to inform advocacy for policies and programs to make these changes a reality.